rufus typed : "Do you ACTUALLY have assets in the State of ND- Bakken"
yes. no need to shut in any wells i have an interest in, they are already connected. and i "sincerely" believe that the day will come when you will regret the days, weeks, months and years that you allowed your gas to go up in smoke. "It cannot be done in 18-24 months". why not ? the 2-36 parshall flared gas for 19 months (about 70% of the ultimate recoverable gas) before being put on sales. and as i have pointed out before, murphy creek is not flaring. but flaring is the only way for parshall ? you seem to think that there is no alternative to flaring. and as i have pointed out before, other states seem to manage. what part of that are you not getting ? and i am here to learn too rufus, trying to learn why you want to waste your gas. steady state of production ? steady state production refers to a specific set of flow parameters that doesnt exist here. the wells i have looked at are in a steady state of decline. you seem to have a thin skin rufus, how's that going to work in those cold north dakota winters with no gas ? you wouldn't need to "chill" then would you rufus ? and who elected you spokesman for nd'akers ? On Oct 1, 5:17 pm, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Elwood, > Answer me one question, will ya? Do you ACTUALLY have assets in the > State of ND- Bakken - or is this just a venue for a 'cause' for you? > First you are all about waste, and the 'foolish people' of the State, > then you are all about 'flaring' then more about widows and > orphans ... Are you for real? I doubt sincerely that you give one > thin damn (or dime) about the people in the state. You do not appear > to extend yourself that far... > Have we not already had the discussion about North Dakotans --? Knock > off the Diggs, Elwood, try some sincerity instead... IF (and that is a > big IF) you do have assets in ND Bakken, perhaps you would like to be > the first one to 'show the unenlightened' the way -- have your well > shut-in until a pipeline gets there or till they start re-injecting > the gas on your own asset. Go on, be the first one..... > Knock off the diggs, Elwood, there are too many good NDak'ers and > former NDak'ers on the board for you to whup us all into your higher > stage of "enlightened being." If you want to try, bring your lunch > (and the lipstick). Most of us on the board are here to learn (how > many times have I said this now??Are you listening?? ) and many of us > are still hoping to earning royalties sometime in our lifetime. > NOW, since you obviously missed the entire point of my previous point, > I will try once more to outline it for you, > YES. Curbing gas flaring is g-o-o-d and will be accomplished when all > of the Bakken fields are in more steady state of production - right > now, it is completely open season on development and they don't even > know yet WHERE the biggest gas discoveries will be found. WHEN they do > - they will build PIPELINES for the gas. They cannot invest in the > expensive infrastructure projects until they know where it has to > go....It cannot be done in 18-24 months. What part of that can't you > get? This is not the first field ever to flare, for heaven's sake. The > earth will not spin off it axis because the bakken fields are flaring! > Chill, dude. > NEXT. > Rufus > > On Oct 1, 4:24 pm, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > right, "government intrusion". government intrusion seems to work in > > other states and they get wells drilled in spite of it. and > > prohibiting flaring doesnt force anyone to sell the original gas > > without infastructure. now suppose that the ndic did not allow > > flaring, what would happen ? more orderly developement ? why is that > > bad ? > > > maybe you could abolish the ndic altogether, no more government > > intrusion. you could bring back the wild wild west. > > > the primary mission of the dnic is to prevent waste. > > > On Oct 1, 3:52 pm, Bri-VA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Knowing how government intrusion really works if they were forced to > > > sell the original gas without infrastructure then the well probably > > > would not be drilled in the first place. How many starving infants and > > > children would be out of luck then? Besides this is North Dakota I > > > suspect there are not too many starving infants and children in the > > > state, the people have too much character for that. Generally the > > > "Judas" argument doesn't get much milage. > > > > On Oct 1, 2:00 pm, elwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > great rufus, nd should allow flaring because nigeria does ? > > > > > and nd should allow flaring because it produces less ghg than raw > > > > methane ? > > > > > majic wand ? how 'bout dont allow it. seems to work in other > > > > states. > > > > > 11,500 mcfd, that is the $$,$$$ equivalent of 920 bopd. surely some > > > > freezing and starving orphans and widows in north dakota could use the > > > > royalty off'n dat rufus. > > > > > On Oct 1, 11:22 am, "Rufus O'Malley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Lipstick, Elwood? Let's go there..... > > > > > Let's start here for fun ..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare > > > > > 'The largest flaring operations occur in the Niger Delta region of > > > > > Nigeria. The leading contributors to gas flaring are (in declining > > > > > order): Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Algeria, Mexico, Venezuela, Indonesia, > > > > > and the United States.' > > > > > > Next: > > > > > http://www.eapirf.org/MenuItems/Resources/Papers/Energy/rsrc304.pdf > > > > > Read the first 3 pages --- Notice the Chart of Flaring countries on > > > > > page two: Where is the US? oh-oh Not there.... > > > > > 'In contrast, gas UTILIZATION is much higher in such > > > > > countries as Norway, the United States, and the > > > > > United Kingdom, WHICH FLARE OR VENT LESS THAT 2 CUBIC METERES FOR > > > > > EVERY BARREL OF OIL. > > > > > Flaring and venting is an important safety > > > > > measure at oil production facilities, safely disposing > > > > > of gas during emergencies, power and equipment > > > > > failures, or other upsets in oil production > > > > > that might otherwise pose hazards to workers or > > > > > nearby residents.' > > > > > > Next: We stop at The World Bank.... (Roadtrip: this is such fun, don't > > > > > you think?) > > > > > 'More than 80 percent of global venting and flaring occurs in fewer > > > > > than 15 countries (including Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Angola, > > > > > Qatar, Algeria, Venezuela, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Brazil and > > > > > Mexico).' > > > > > "The GGFR partnership, managed and facilitated by a small team at the > > > > > World Bank in Washington, DC, includes the following partners: Algeria > > > > > (Sonatrach), Angola, Cameroon, Canada (CIDA), Chad, Ecuador, > > > > > Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Khanty-Mansijsysk (Russia), > > > > > Nigeria, Norway, Qatar, U.K. Foreign Commonwealth Office, United > > > > > States; BP, Chevron, ENI, ExxonMobil, Marathon, NorskHydro, Shell, > > > > > Statoil, Total; OPEC Secretariat, and the World Bank. The EU will > > > > > become a partner in 2007." > > > > > The US is already on the forefront of this issue and has been for some > > > > > time.... > > > > > Key Obstacles (to reducing flaring): 'But a key obstacle to reduce the > > > > > amount of gas flared is the lack of infrastructure and available > > > > > markets for the associated gas.' > > > > > “Large amounts of oil are produced in remote areas and often it’s > > > > > offshore far from any potential markets for the gas and infrastructure > > > > > is the key to utilize this gas. So what we do is we work with the > > > > > industry, with the governments to facilitate investments in this > > > > > infrastructure,” Svensson says. > > > > > The GGFR partnership aims to create a framework so investments can > > > > > take place, as the Partnership itself does not have the funds to > > > > > invest in infrastructure such as pipelines, but instead relies on the > > > > > private companies to do the investments. But Svensson says there are > > > > > several other obstacles. > > > > > > “First of all there’s often contractual regulatory issues related to > > > > > the utilization of this gas. In old petroleum contracts, it’s often > > > > > not clear who owns the gas and therefore who can utilize it. > > > > > > “Often these can be economically marginal projects so we are working > > > > > with the industry and the governments to improve the economics of > > > > > these projects. And the tools that we have been looking into include > > > > > carbon credit financing in order to help these projects become more > > > > > viable.” > > > > > > In brief, the success and viability of gas flaring reduction projects > > > > > depend on having the right conditions and incentives such as fiscal > > > > > incentives, investments in infrastructure, markets availability, > > > > > appropriate regulations that enable gas utilization, and political > > > > > will.' > > > > > Next:http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20966504~... > > > > > > Next : (my personal > > > > > favorite)http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/world-gasflare.pdf > > > > > This is the first effort by the World Bank Global Gas Flaring > > > > > Reduction Partnership project to actually see and measure the flaring > > > > > globally to find the worst offenders... Notice: There is no satellite > > > > > measureability of gas flaring in the US -- Elwood, Any high levels of > > > > > flaring coming from North Dakota fields? > > > > > > Next:http://www.portofentry.com/site/root/resources/industry_news/5023.html > > > > > "While 22 countries have actually increased gas flaring, 16 have made > > > > > progress in reducing it, and nine have maintained stable levels of > > > > > flaring over a 12-year period, according to the study" > > > > > My main point here is that their study is making PROGRESS over a 12- > > > > > YEAR-SPAN. I admit there must be a better way to deal with the gas > > > > > from the drilling -- but I bet that if you give ND 12 YEARS (instead > > > > > of the 18-24 months since the boom started) that they, too, will make > > > > > progress. They are already making progress, with new and expanded > > > > > pipelines, new natural gas plant at South Heart, re-injection > > > > > technique exploration and r & d, And that has been in the little time > > > > > span, all the while dealing with the boom issues of highway and road > > > > > infrastructure problems, legislative issues, population expansion, and > > > > > everything else that comes with 'boom times' > > > > > > Next:http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,504511,00.html > > > > > (Germany-- alright!) > > > > > > Yes, Elwood, YES. There IS an issue here. ND (and the WORLD) are > > > > > working to solve it. When you look at the bigger picture vs looking > > > > > at the microcosm of the North Dakota -Mountrail County Bakken, the > > > > > percentage of flared gas is miniscule by comparison to the overall > > > > > scheme of things. And when you look at the scientific data, flaring is > > > > > better for the environment than venting, which is releasing the raw > > > > > methane into the environment.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bakken Shale Discussion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bakken-shale-discussion?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
